NSA Saga Pt 2.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:08 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/

Ok, those who believed the wiretapping thing was ok let's chew on this one. Bush lied when he said the NSA program was ONLY looking at international / domestic calls. Is he going to say that the broad authority grants him this as well? Nobody told this man that he can do whatever he wants, someone needs to get this man out of office, impeachment or whatever. Power has obviously corrupted this smug piece of sh!t from Texas.

The thing that bothers me the most is the issue about Qwest refusing to do it. I read in an earlier report, not sure if it's in the link above, about how when Qwest refused to provide them with the numbers, they pulled the \"matter of national security\", when Qwest asked to go before FISA, the NSA refused because they were afraid they might be told that they can't do that.

America = Suddenly # 2 behind Canada.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:45 pm

Oh yay, now I am safe knowing my romantic conversations with my girlfriend are being recorded by the NSA!

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:46 pm

Power has obviously corrupted this smug piece of **** from Texas.

I agree, Bush is doing a terrible job. I'm not ashamed to admit I voted for him, the alternative was a death sentence(not that Bush isn't.. just didn't look so bad at the time).. but, I am sorely disappointed in his performance.Not sure sorely conveys how disappointed I am, however.Hell, even Nader the socialist is more appealing than Bush.

Remember something, they're all politicians and none of them are your friend or out to 'help' you in any way. They're all pieces of crap, nomatter where they're from.

Man, that sure does sound bad. but, I really do believe it.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:50 pm

You're exactly right Barry, where was the oversight? Apparently, members of Congress DID know about this one, I'm not sure which ones, but they did. Where the hell are our reps? Where is our voice? I'm sorry, but the quote in the link is right, 200 million Americans are NOT in Al Qaeda...something needs to be done here. Bomb Washington and start over. Worked once, should work again.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:58 pm

where was the oversight?

Oversight implies that it was accidental- I think this was a case of 'look the other way', like most things that screw the American people now days.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu May 11, 2006 4:38 pm

You think Congress is able to control the NSA? I don't. I think it was a case of \"look the other way\" in the sense that any Senators/Reps who knew about it said \"this is an uphill battle, best not to fight it and lose.\"

Anyone else ever notice the clicking on the phone after the first ring? I sure did.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 11, 2006 6:03 pm

The phone companies always have a record of which number was called from which number.
That's the way they keep track of their product and conduct billing procedures. At anytime before Bush was even born the government could get those records through one means or another and in fact before he was president they did just that and more like the Echelon project during the '90's.

Although the sound bites we're seeing passed off today as reporting do a great job of leaving the attention deficit public to believe Bush lied about the NSA program he authorized and this is the evidence of his listening in on us... the real truth is these are not recordings of peoples conversations, they are the same damn records that have always been kept in each of the respective phone companies databases!

The only question is, did the government obtain the records of which number called which number without breaking the law. Not exactly the same thing as Bush being caught with a tape recording of Joe Sixpacks conversations is it?

Kind of makes me wonder how such awful journalism is being passed off as breaking news of a wiretapping scandal.

The fact that they might have collected the data of what numbers we dial from our phones without getting a warrant to learn that info could be a problem.
If a warrant is actually required for them to get that info.
Considering the local DMV sells the names, addresses and phone numbers of all the drivers license holders to private corporations to fill their databases, and they do it legally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the phone number logs aren't protected information either, which would really put a damper on this breaking story wouldn't it.

To bad those brilliant journalists haven't bothered to include that aspect in their report. Maybe they decided those kind of details just don't fit the mood of the piece

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu May 11, 2006 8:43 pm

Will Robinson wrote:The fact that they might have collected the data of what numbers we dial from our phones without getting a warrant to learn that info could be a problem.

Precisely.

I work as a programmer in the billing department of one of the major phone companies. We have REALLY accurate records going back a little over 2 years. Up to 10 years back we have an image of the bill stored (which still has all the call detail)

But we do NOT hand that information over to anyone without proper authority.

Speaking of which, I'm a little bit ticked off about all this. Apparently the NSA didn't bother to ask MY company for its records. Whats that about? Our customers are all republicans? Perhaps we aren't marketing enough to Al Queda, I dunno. But somehow I'm certain we've been snubbed.

In the meantime, you'll be happy to know that if you happen to get residential long distance from my company, all of your confidential calling information is now being handled by citizens of Argentina and Brazil. They offshored almost all of the billing department.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri May 12, 2006 12:34 am

I'm not exactly thrilled with the prospect of all of this, and I'm even less thrilled when I start to ponder where the NSA would like to go in the future, but it's not like this sets off an immediate Chicken Little vibe for me. The real question I have, though, is why the NSA would even want to bother with all of this data. Honestly, do they really think that a hell of a lot of numbers, or even, God forbid, voice recordings, are going to help them catch anyone? All it'll do for them is give them a ton of useless data to sift through while being paid with our tax dollars. Another cheerful thought, there.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri May 12, 2006 5:53 am

Top Gun, it is called \"connect the dots\". From a suspect phone number, a trail of phone numbers can be backed tracked to say a fund raising group trying to insulated itself from suspicion be using a number of phone contacts as a fence.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:14 am

Woodchip, these aren't \"suspect\" phone numbers, unless you suspect 200 million people are in Al Qaeda AND living here in the U.S. Why do I feel this isn't legal? The fact that Qwest asked, according to the sources, to go before the FISA court and make it legal and was rebuffed makes me think that the NSA knows this is crossing the line.

Woodchip, think of this for a little. Couple months ago, it came out the Bush was recording American's phone calls. Hell broke out, he says \"it's only international / domestic based calls and that's it\"...now it comes out that that is NOT the entire story. I'm saddened to think that this is NOT the only truth, perhaps they are recording phone calls and these sources didn't know about it. Don't be so quick to think they aren't.

You know, the only difference between Clinton and Bush and their lying is this, Clinton was under oath and Bush refuses to go under oath to answer any questions. The man sickens me, in fact, the whole govt sickens me. I want to know which Congressional members knew about this, get them all out of office.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri May 12, 2006 9:25 am

Zuruck wrote:You know, the only difference between Clinton and Bush and their lying is this, Clinton was under oath and Bush refuses to go under oath to answer any questions. The man sickens me, in fact, the whole govt sickens me. I want to know which Congressional members knew about this, get them all out of office.

Clinton didn't exactly wake up one morning and say "Hey, I think I'll go give a deposition to a prosecutor this morning because that's the right thing to do."!

He only went under oath because if he didn't even he couldn't have avoided the conviction that would surely follow a swift impeachment if he so blatently disregard a judges order to appear!

As it stands he begrudgingly appeared, lied big time, then lied again to a grand jury and managed to exploit the uniquely politicized legal process to barely squeeze free of the laws grip somewhere between impeachment and conviction!
No mere mortal civilian would have escaped that way because the process wouldn't have been in the political arena, it would have been an everyday criminal court.

Bush hasn't been compelled by a judge to appear anywhere...yet.
So, assuming Bush is also guilty as sin, the only difference is in the degree of wrecklessness in which they each broke the law.

From there of course there we could seek further comparison of the character of each man and examine the morality behind their motives for breaking the law ie; One broke the law because he wanted to stick his penis in something warm and wet and the other wanted to catch al Queda....

(edited to add: This doesn't mean I think Bush is more moral than Clinton in toto, just in the specific comparison that Zuruck raised it might be worth noting who each man was trying to serve.)

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri May 12, 2006 11:39 am

Will Robinson wrote:Kind of makes me wonder how such awful journalism is being passed off as breaking news of a wiretapping scandal.

Really. One gets the impression that the "History of Objective Media in the US" would be a rather slim volume.

Will Robinson wrote:The fact that they might have collected the data of what numbers we dial from our phones without getting a warrant to learn that info could be a problem.
If a warrant is actually required for them to get that info.
Considering the local DMV sells the names, addresses and phone numbers of all the drivers license holders to private corporations to fill their databases, and they do it legally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the phone number logs aren't protected information either, which would really put a damper on this breaking story wouldn't it.

To bad those brilliant journalists haven't bothered to include that aspect in their report. Maybe they decided those kind of details just don't fit the mood of the piece

Here's a link with further links to some of the legal issues involved.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:32 pm

I'm not really worried. It was mentioned on the news that there are 890,000/ MINUTE made in America. Like there are enough agents to monitor each and every call.

There are records of calls anyways kept by the phone companies and if it keeps dorks from flying into my house.. all the better.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri May 12, 2006 11:22 pm

The previously discussed program was \"the NSA listening in on phone calls\". Bush said this was limited to overseas calls to/from known terror affiliates.

The current program is \"the NSA gathering statistics about phone calls and looking for patterns\". From what I understand, there's no \"listening\" going on, they're just looking at what phone numbers are being called, how long calls are, etc. and trying to find statistical patterns.

Don't conflate \"gathering statistics\" with \"listening in\". Gathering these statistics may or may not be a good idea in its own right, and that might be worth discussing, but it's pointless to even attempt it if we can't get past the first step of recognizing the difference between the two programs.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:47 am

Zuruck wrote:Bush lied when he said the NSA program was ONLY looking at international / domestic calls. Is he going to say that the broad authority grants him this as well? Nobody told this man that he can do whatever he wants, someone needs to get this man out of office, impeachment or whatever. Power has obviously corrupted this smug piece of **** from Texas.

Another stunningly ignorant analysis from the left. I can't wait for the "impeachment" to begin.

You jumped on the USA Today conga line with the "Bush lied" theme. Then it turns out there is no lie.

Dang it.

Lothar got it right, as did the Wall Street Journal: "President Bush never suggested that domestic call 'records' were private. He has said actual warrantless surveillance was restricted to conversations that involved an overseas party: 'The government does not listen [our emphasis] to domestic phone calls without court approval.' Datamining and wiretapping are not the same thing. So much for the "Bush lied" angle to this story."

You don't have an expectation of privacy in your phone records, Zuruck. The Supreme Court said so long before you were born. (Smith v. Maryland (1979) 442 U.S. 735.) But hey, keep it up with your unsubstantiated rhetoric against the president in a time of war, brother. Jihadists everywhere are grateful for your continuing support. Right up until the point where they saw your head off.

If you believe in polls, this one is going the way of the last NSA "scandal". By the way, how's the impeachment process moving along on that one?

The Democrats Will Get You Killed.

BD

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sat May 13, 2006 6:24 pm

Time of war? Didn't Dubya annouce \"we won\" about 2 years ago?

The whole \"time of war\" thing is a total crock of ★■◆●. If it's true, then there's never been a time since Korea, that the USA hasn't been at war!

You've had your rights systematically strolen, eroded and with-held beginning at 9-11 and continuing today.

You're kinda like a frog in a pot, with a flame underneath: if you throw a frog into hot water, they jump straight out, but if you put the frog in cold water, and then heat it, it will just sit there until it's cooked, without ever trying to escape.

You are that frog.

Any people who allow their rights and freedoms to be taken from them simply don't deserve them. What you DO deserve, is the government you now have, and there is no one to blame except the American public, who, quite frankly, have acted far too much like sheep for a long time now.

It's about time someone gave the US public a good shake up, and a bit of a wake up.

In my view, Bush has been the Al Queda's very best friend, Iran's very best friend, and an enemy of the American Public. He holds in contempt, what the vast majority of American citizens seem to hold dear (Although they've made no attemot to prevent Bush continuing on his ruinous path), and he has turned the world largely against the USA, when at the start of his presidency even the French newspaper Le Monde shouted in 3 inch letters \"Today we are all Americans\" - a statement that would be impossible today.

Even if you impeached Bush today, and replaced him with a genuinely good president (of which the USA has had many!) it will take a decade to repair the international damage Bush and his cronies have done.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat May 13, 2006 8:01 pm

Mobi, please read the post directly above yours. And then STFU.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:15 pm

Mobius wrote:You are that frog.

I note that Noordin Top of of the terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah recently escaped prison. You remember this group -- they executed the Bali car bombing on October 12, 2002 in which suicide bombers killed 202 people, mostly Australian tourists? He's also apparently behind the Jakarta embassy bombing? Ring a bell?

Boy is he going to be angry with you guys.

Australia is a great ally. But your sentiment echoes the same flaccid philosophy of Australia's ambassador for counter-terrorism, Les Luck, who says Western nations need to recognize the ideological underpinnings of organizations like Jemaah Islamiah. Terrorists really just need understanding, it seems.

Interesting strategy. The United States declines your adopt it, thank you.

Best of luck with it though. If after you've reached a full comprehension of Islamo-fascist ideology -- which will be probably about the time they're sawing your head off --

You would do well to pray for more frogs.

BD

Vindicator · Post by **Vindicator** » Sun May 14, 2006 12:22 am

Bold Deceiver wrote:You would do well to pray for more frogs.
BD

MORE FROSGS omg wtf
druNK!1

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 14, 2006 9:23 am

Mobius wrote:Even if you impeached Bush today, and replaced him with a genuinely good president (of which the USA has had many!) it will take a decade to repair the international damage Bush and his cronies have done.

Can you name even one of those great presidents since the introduction of electronic communications who hasn't done the same thing as the Bush administration? In fact every move in this arena he has made has been enabled by the laws and executive orders enacted by previous presidents, great and otherwise.

Oh, by the way, just because France threw a great pity party on 9/12/2001 doesn't mean they were actually any more an ally then than they are now! You have to be one naive fellow to believe otherwise.
One weeks worth of expressed empathy does not erase decades of actions!
They have consistantly enabled the enimies of america since before Hitlers boys goose stepped into Paris and proclaimed France his biotch!

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun May 14, 2006 8:10 pm

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon May 15, 2006 10:38 am

Yeah Bold you're right, we should never, ever question our leaders in a time of war, we should just roll over and let them do as they want right, I mean, they have our best interests at heart right? Don't you guys ever question, I'm willing to be that even the left wing guys in here found Bill Clinton to be a slimy greaseball, YET you guys would defend Bush even if he went to the Archives, pulled out the Constitution, and pissed on it. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if there were no term limits you would vote for Bush AGAIN. Saddens me that I have to consider you guys Americans, because you sure don't act like it.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:25 pm

you guys would defend Bush even if he went to the Archives, pulled out the Constitution, and pissed on it.

“It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

He verbally has already.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:32 pm

Hell Barry you might be right. Reading the EOs that you posted along with the other things, that piece of paper might not be worth much at all anymore anyways. Every single one of our \"freedoms\" can be taken away at any second by a friggin pen. On top of that, it could be done by some two bit coke snorting bible beating piece of Texas trash.

</my rant>

Side note, if this phone tracing thing is no big deal and it happens all the time, why did Qwest tell the NSA to take a hike?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon May 15, 2006 6:56 pm

Zuruck wrote:Side note, if this phone tracing thing is no big deal and it happens all the time, why did Qwest tell the NSA to take a hike?

You would have to ask them but just because they refused to cooperate doesn't make them an authority on anything.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon May 15, 2006 9:11 pm

Zuruck wrote:if this phone tracing thing is no big deal and it happens all the time, why did Qwest tell the NSA to take a hike?

Phone tracing isn't that big of a deal, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE PROPER PAPERWORK.

Which is the continual problem here. G. W. Bush should be going out of his way to make certain all of the t's are crossed and all of the i's are dotted. But he does the opposite. Even when getting a warrent would be easy, he doesn't bother.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon May 15, 2006 11:40 pm

you guys don't remember watergate, do you?

This kinda thing has been going on since the MCarthy era, and most likely before. As long as there are paranoid people, there will be \"illegal\" wire taps.

Nosferatu · Post by **Nosferatu** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:32 am

Oh.

Dont yall worry your pretty heads off.

This POS president is gunna win by a landslide.

Dontcha know: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_05.php#004658

Ya ya ya, Im wearing my tin foil hat right now.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue May 16, 2006 11:22 am

Oh absolutely Will, the CEO of Qwest at the time was under investigation for insider trading. My question is, why, if this was no big deal for the telcom companies, did they remain the sole dissention?

I think the big issue should be about Qwest's desire for the FISA court's approval and the NSA saying no, they didn't want to involve legalities. For those who say it's too far of a stretch to think they're doing other things, think of this.

6 months ago - Illegal Wiretapping. Bush says it's domestic / international only. Nothing else.

1 month ago - Compiling huge databases on any American they choose. Bush says it's \"tracking and networking\" only. Nothing else.

What will it be 6 months from now? 1 year?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:49 pm

Zuruck wrote:Oh absolutely Will, the CEO of Qwest at the time was under investigation for insider trading. My question is, why, if this was no big deal for the telcom companies, did they remain the sole dissention?

I think the big issue should be about Qwest's desire for the FISA court's approval and the NSA saying no, they didn't want to involve legalities. For those who say it's too far of a stretch to think they're doing other things, think of this.

6 months ago - Illegal Wiretapping. Bush says it's domestic / international only. Nothing else.

1 month ago - Compiling huge databases on any American they choose. Bush says it's "tracking and networking" only. Nothing else.

What will it be 6 months from now? 1 year?

Well, in all the time since he said those things has anyone, any court, any prosecutor....any actual authority on the subject said that he was really doing something more and that anything he did was actually illegal?
If the answer is no then I'm not really interested in hearing a partisan rendition of The Sky is Falling.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue May 16, 2006 3:09 pm

Will, who are you talking about? GW? The CEO? I'm very interested as to why one company would outright refuse and the rest roll over and play dead for the administration.

I beg the question, anyone know what \"freedoms\" we're fighting this war to protect? Seems as if they mere fantansies, small figments of what was once a great country. It's not just Bush, it's power. Power corrupts eventually, it has and will continue to do so until there is nothing left to control

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed May 17, 2006 11:18 am

At least one article would have us believe that the government is going a bit beyond the scope of merely protective us against the threat of terrorism. The following article alleges the government has tried to use phone tracing to learn the identity of leaks to these two reporters:

http://blogs.abcnews.com//theblotter/20 ... urce_.html

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed May 17, 2006 11:35 am

While I believe leaking classified information is indeed a threat to national security, I think the informant role has turned into one to be praised. If there is no accountability or oversight in Washington, something needs to happen to bring it out in public. The power of Washington has grown with technology, but there has been no reining of power on either side, where is the accountability? Why don't they look up the phone records for the Valerie Plame debacle? Obviously, the leaks they want to plug are the ones that really hurt them, they got lucky with Libby taking one for the team, hopefully Rove will get indicted. I'll toast the day Fitzgerald brings the monster in.

I guess the idea is this. If you are dumb enough, and I think there are several here that are, to believe that this govt is \"just\" compiling records, then you're an idiot. You have to know it's more than that, is Bush the only prez to do so, probably not. But then again, he campaigned that he was bringing change to the white house, restoring moral values since you know, he was an outsider and everything.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Wed May 17, 2006 11:57 am

I don't know whether the law has been violated or not with this business. But I am gravely concerned about the situation and believe it merits investigation.

Will's argument that Bush is not the only president to (blah blah) makes zero sense since Bush is the only president in office and previous wrongs do not make current wrongs right.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:14 pm

Zuruck wrote:Yeah Bold you're right, we should never, ever question our leaders in a time of war, we should just roll over and let them do as they want right, I mean, they have our best interests at heart right? Don't you guys ever question, I'm willing to be that even the left wing guys in here found Bill Clinton to be a slimy greaseball, YET you guys would defend Bush even if he went to the Archives, pulled out the Constitution, and pissed on it. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if there were no term limits you would vote for Bush AGAIN. Saddens me that I have to consider you guys Americans, because you sure don't act like it.

This is your response?

You're not "questioning a leader" in time of war, Zuruck. You're taking a position that America's president lied about the activities of the NSA regarding United States citizens. That's not a question -- that's not a matter of opinion. Either he lied or he didn't lie. You were challenged on the point and your response is "saddens me you guys are Americans."

I'm overwhelmed.

Give me a fact to support your claim. Give me some law broken, some analytical thought on your part that matches facts to law. Otherwise, you're just another leftie operating on faith and emotion, hoping to boost your political position while men and women are out there dying for your right to do just that. And all the while, your enemies -- and you do have enemies -- are delighted you've joined the fold.

The Democrats Will Get You Killed.

BD

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:21 pm

Zuruck wrote:While I believe leaking classified information is indeed a threat to national security, I think the informant role has turned into one to be praised.

Riiiiiiiiight. And so if someone had leaked to, say, Germany how to build and deploy a nuclear weapon during WWII -- you'd be a huge fan. Why? Because folks, the "informant role has turned into one to be praised."

Great. Any particular guidelines for these patriotic informants, Z? I mean, should we be cool with it, my man? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter -- am I right? And one man's traitor is another man's -- "praised informant".

Gosh I'm breathless with anticipation. Just can't wait to hear the guidelines, policy-maker Zuruck.

The Democrats Will Get You Killed.

BD

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:56 pm

couldn't resist.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:32 am

Palzon wrote:....Will's argument that Bush is not the only president to (blah blah) makes zero sense since Bush is the only president in office and previous wrongs do not make current wrongs right.

My point that these things happened previously is an important distinction to be made in the current discussion because lawmakers, President Clinton and his former administration officials, most mainstream media outlets, have all come out to imply that Bush is doing something illegal when they were praising these very same actions and defending their own part in creating them just before Bush became president!
My point is not a defense of "They did it so Bush can too"... my point is an indictment of the motives behind this new found concern for the people's privacy. It's bull★■◆●!
It's a damn political witch hunt and selective application of principle based soley on partisanship!

The self appointed judges and jury in this case created, praised and defended these programs before Bush became president and now you want me to believe they are shocked to discover these kind of programs or suddenly found religion and are now actually concerned with my privacy?!?
Heh!
Save that for the Kool-Aid drinkers like Zuruck and CNN's faithful viewers!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:48 am

Ack, I never liked kool aid Will, put some basil haydens in it and we'll talk.

Bold, you're missing the entire point. Informants are to be praised when there is no accountability for these politicians, on both sides. These guys are not above the law, yet your side is willing to let them do as they wish since the left is \"with the enemy\". Interestingly enough, the majority of Americans now feel that security here in the US would be better handled by a Democrat. I have to say I agree with them, do you feel any safer after 9/11? And I'm sorry, this is supposed to be America, you are supposed to be able to pick up your phone without worrying about somebody listening, checking our a library book without someone noticing, but you guys are all ok with that, even without being implicated in a crime. You used to have to have reasonable suspicion, now all you have to do is speak out against Bush and you get. Doesn't sound like America to me, but you're ok with it.

NSA Saga Pt 2.

NSA Saga Pt 2.

Re:

Re:

Re: NSA Saga Pt 2.

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: